Bug 751925

rpmlint -v output:
python-tables.src: I: checking
python-tables.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases
python-tables.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases
python-tables.src: I: checking-url http://www.pytables.org (timeout 10 seconds)
python-tables.src: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/pytables/files/pytables/2.3.1/tables-2.3.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
python-tables.x86_64: I: checking
python-tables.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases
python-tables.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases
python-tables.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.pytables.org (timeout 10 seconds)
python-tables.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ptrepack
python-tables.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nctoh5
python-tables.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ptdump
python-tables-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
python-tables-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.pytables.org (timeout 10 seconds)
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

I'll take this review

Hi Thibault,

pretty much there, I've just got a couple of questions. The %check seems to take an awfully long time, and there are a number of test directories installed.

I'm just wondering if they're really necessary. 

You could consider a separate doc package also for the examples and documentation, but that's just a suggestion. Full review below, I'll wait for your reply before passing.



[-] N/A
[+] Good
[!] Attention
[?] Clarification


Required
========

[+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines 
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec 
[+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines
unless building for F12 and below  or EPEL   

[!] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines 
*** You just need to specify the lrucache.py is licensed under AFL

[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license 
[+] License file must be included in %doc
[+] The spec file must be written in American English
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
*** I would split the Requires on separate lines for legibility but thats just 
personal preference

[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
shasum c8592ce71809120cf3e8ee8e7befcfaa54085b3c OK
[+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary
architecture
[+] Proper use of ExcludeArch 
[!] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
*** perhaps python2-devel rather than python-devel, although this is rather cosmetic

[+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[-] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[+] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package
[+] A package must own all directories that it creates
directories under this
[+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[ ] Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr(...) no longer required
[+] Each package must consistently use macros
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[+] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage

[-] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[-] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[-] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
[-] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[-] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[-] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section 
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

[!] Has BuildRequires: python2-devel and/or python3-devel
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires (As mentioned above)

[-] Defines and uses %{python_sitelib} or %{python_sitearch}:
%if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5)
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")}
%endif
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros


[?] Has BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel

I'm really not sure if this is still required?

[+] Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from upstream into the proper directory.
[+] Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[+] If egg-info files are generated by the modules build scripts they must be included in the package.
[-] When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package.
[-] When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup.
[+] A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. 
[+] Requires OK

[+] Egg install:
%install
%{__python} setup.py install --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 

Should Items
============
[-] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to
include it
[-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the
package spec if available
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
[+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures
[+] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described
tests OK
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself
[+] Should contain man pages for binaries/scripts
None in source although adequate documentation

Hello Brendan,
Thanks for your review.

>The %check seems to
>take an awfully long time, and there are a number of test directories
>installed.

>I'm just wondering if they're really necessary. 

I don't really know. For python-numexpr, I was suggested to add these kind of checks. I guess it will help the tracking of some bugs if tests fail at a rebuild.

>You could consider a separate doc package also for the examples and
>documentation, but that's just a suggestion. Full review below, I'll wait for
>your reply before passing.

Done.

>[!] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
>Guidelines 
>*** You just need to specify the lrucache.py is licensed under AFL

License is set to BSD and AFL: is that good enough?

>[?] Has BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel
>
>I'm really not sure if this is still required?

I don't know. Other python- packages I have seen don't have it.

>[!] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
>*** perhaps python2-devel rather than python-devel, although this is rather
>cosmetic

Fixed.
Thanks again,
Thibault

...and new URLs of course:

Spec URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/python-tables.spec
SRPM URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/python-tables-2.3.1-2.fc15.src.rpm

Thanks Thibault, you just need to be a little more specific as to why its multi-licensed: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

On closer inspection it looks like pytables bundles lrucache which looks to be a separate package in its own right, although it has been modified slightly by the pytables developers:

http://evan.prodromou.name/Software/Python/LRUCache 

I will try and get some confirmation on this.

Hi Thibault,

I've run your package by the packing mail list and Toshio has some clear advice on how to proceed:

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2011-November/007985.html

Hi Brendan,

Thanks for that. I will contact upstream and see what can be done about that.

Hi Brendan,

According to upstream, Toshio's suggestion was good: remove lrucache.py and get rid of the AFL license.
A patch was sent upstream.

Here is an updated build. In the %prep section, that file is removed along with its license. Is that good enough for this version of PyTables? Or do we need to remove lrucache.py from the tarball ?

Spec URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/python-tables.spec
SRPM URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/python-tables-2.3.1-3.fc14.src.rpm

All good Thibault. This package is APPROVED

Thank you Brendan.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-tables
Short Description: Hierarchical datasets in Python
Owners: tnorth
Branches: f15 f16
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python-tables-2.3.1-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-tables-2.3.1-3.fc15

python-tables-2.3.1-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-tables-2.3.1-3.fc16

python-tables-2.3.1-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.

python-tables-2.3.1-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

python-tables-2.3.1-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.

Thibault/Zbigniew - either of you willing to maintain this in EPEL7?

I don't think this should be any issue. I can't provide any special support for EPEL7, but I can build it along with the Fedora version and deal with any bugs which can be reproduced in Fedora.

That would be great.  I can help out too.  Thanks.

(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #21)
> That would be great.  I can help out too.  Thanks.
Great, thanks.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: python-tables
New Branches: epel7
Owners: tnorth zbyszek
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-tables-3.2.0-1.el7,blosc-1.6.1-1.el7,python-blosc-1.2.7-3.el7,python-numexpr-2.3-4.el7